Giano v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Giano v. Coughlin

162 A.D.2d 986, 559 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9734

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 22, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 162 A.D.2d 986 (Giano v. Coughlin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Giano v. Coughlin, 162 A.D.2d 986, 559 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9734 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Although the legal issues petitioner raises could have been decided by Supreme Court in the first instance, we may properly retain jurisdiction and decide the case on the merits (see, Matter of Portugal v Webb, 91 AD2d 997, 998). There is no merit to petitioner’s claim that the hearing to determine whether he was properly confined in administrative segregation was untimely commenced. There is no time limit prescribed by law [987]*987for such a hearing (see, Matter of Young v Coughlin, 144 AD2d 753, Iv dismissed 74 NY2d 625, rearg denied 74 NY2d 792; cf., 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [a]) and the hearing was held within a reasonable time and only six days after petitioner received the administrative segregation report. We have reviewed the other issues raised by petitioner and find them lacking in merit. (Article 78 proceedings transferred by order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Although the legal issues petitioner raises could have been decided by Supreme Court in the first instance, we may properly retain jurisdiction and decide the case on the merits (see, Matter of Portugal v Webb, 91 AD2d 997, 998). There is no merit to petitioner’s claim that the hearing to determine whether he was properly confined in administrative segregation was untimely commenced. There is no time limit prescribed by law [987]*987for such a hearing (see, Matter of Young v Coughlin, 144 AD2d 753, Iv dismissed 74 NY2d 625, rearg denied 74 NY2d 792; cf., 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [a]) and the hearing was held within a reasonable time and only six days after petitioner received the administrative segregation report. We have reviewed the other issues raised by petitioner and find them lacking in merit. (Article 78 proceedings transferred by order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 986, 559 N.Y.S.2d 201, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giano-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack